Fewer Americans are visiting national parks. Administrators ask why

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Kevin Rooney

New member
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Messages
3,667
Reaction score
354
Interesting article from today's LA Times.

As the National Park Service begins planning for its 100th birthday in 2016, the venerable agency has reason to wonder who will show up.

By the service's own reckoning, visits to national parks have been on a downward slide for 10 years. Overnight stays fell 20% between 1995 and 2005, and tent camping and backcountry camping each decreased nearly 24% during the same period.

Visits are down at almost all national parks, even at Yosemite, notorious for summertime crowds and traffic jams. Meanwhile, most of the 390 properties in the park system are begging for business.

"Most days, we'd be delighted to see 10 people," said Craig Dorman, superintendent at Lava Beds National Monument, a seldom-visited site near the California-Oregon border that is even emptier these days. "It was pretty crowded around here during the Modoc War," he said, referring to the 1872 Modoc Indian uprising. "But there probably haven't been that many people here since."

Typically, families with children recede from the parks in the fall. Now, the retirees who traditionally take their place in the fall and winter are choosing to go elsewhere. Last year, about 569,000 vacationers went to Yosemite in July, nearly 20% fewer than in the same month in 1995. In January, there were 94,000 visitors, about 30% fewer than in January 1995.

Agency officials admit that national parks are doing a poor job attracting two large constituencies — young people and minorities — causing concerns about the parks' continued appeal to a changing population.

A study commissioned by the park service and released in 2003 found that only 13% of the African Americans interviewed had visited a park in the previous two years.

For more than a year, the appropriations committee of the U.S. House of Representatives has been asking the park service to explain how it intends to attract more minorities to parks.

"Let me assure you that the leadership of the service is talking about this and spending a fair amount of time trying to understand the trends," said Jon Jarvis, director of the park service's Pacific West region. "You don't have to have statistics and surveys to recognize that the visitors we are seeing do not reflect the diversity of the United States."

Meanwhile, the parks' most loyal visitors over the last several decades are vacationing elsewhere. Baby boomers are changing the way they play. Some of the more adventurous have embraced mountain biking and similar sports that are not allowed in many national parks. But as they age, most boomers are less interested in pitching tents and sleeping on the ground.

"I do believe that there is a significant trend, 'Done before dinner,' " said Frank Hugelmeyer, president of the Outdoor Industry Assn. "Baby Boomers want hard adventure by day and soft adventure by night. They want to paddle and rock-climb and also their Cabernet and almond-crusted salmon with asparagus. And a nice bed."

Many young families, too, are spurning the parks. According to Emilyn Sheffield, a social scientist at Cal State Chico on loan to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, children have more say in family vacation destinations than ever before and, if they must be outdoors, they prefer theme parks.

But, even if children vote to visit a park, Sheffield said, many families spend no more than three hours traveling to vacation destinations, meaning that parks far from urban areas are getting a pass. In contrast, urban parks, including the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area and San Francisco's Golden Gate National Recreation Area, are among the most heavily used parks in the country.

A Nature Conservancy study funded by the National Science Foundation and released last July found a correlation between the drop in national park visits and the increasing popularity of at-home entertainment, including video games and the Internet.

Author Richard Louv writes of a "nature deficit disorder" and suggests parental fears about kidnapping and crime are keeping children off neighborhood streets and out of parks.

"We're talking about a generation that's being raised under virtual house arrest," said Louv, whose 2005 book, "Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder," is being used as a study guide at some national parks.

"We scare them to death with signs and pamphlets warning them about bears, snakes, spiders, poison oak, drowning, driving on ice and in snow and all the other disclaimers we provide," said Alexandra Picavet, the spokeswoman at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. "Small wonder they are terrified."

Some parks are using technology to draw teenagers in. Officials at Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area are experimenting with a Pocket Ranger game that simulates activities available in the park. The game can be downloaded from a website to iPods and other devices and continued in the park as a kind of scavenger hunt.

To Ellen Sachtjen, a seventh-grade teacher at Thomas Edison Middle School in South-Central Los Angeles, parks can be an oasis of calm for children frazzled by city living. Sachtjen leads the school's Sequoia for Youth group, a park-sponsored program that takes children into Sequoia National Park, where they overcome their fear of nature and leave behind their fear of the street violence.

"At first, no one wanted to go," she said. "Now, it's encultured in the school. They go on a night hike, where they experience the night without the sirens and boom boxes and police presence. Those are life-changing experiences for them. I bring them back and the kids say they want to be rangers."

But for many African Americans, Asian Americans and Latinos, the parks remain remote places they don't want to visit. In 2000, the park service commissioned a comprehensive survey of attitudes toward parks. While 34% told interviewers they were too busy to visit parks, others reported that they did not feel welcome or safe there.

One example of inadvertent exclusion was at Kings Canyon, where rangers began to notice in recent years that Latino families from the Central Valley visiting for the day complained they could not find enough space at family picnic sites.

The park service had assumed that a family would be able to fit at one picnic table that seated about six people. But the extended Latino families visiting Kings Canyon often numbered 15 to 20 people, a size the park defined as a "group" requiring a permit.

The park adjusted by enlarging the size of some picnic areas, placing tables closer together and doing the same thing at some campgrounds. Kings Canyon now has the only fully bilingual visitor center in the National Park Service.

Cultural insensitivity might be less of an issue if there were more minorities employed in parks. J.T. Reynolds, the superintendent of Death Valley National Park and an African American, said recruiting more diversity in the ranger ranks has been a long-standing but largely failed effort by the park service. Eighty percent of full-time park employees are white, despite minority recruitment efforts.

Wallace Stegner, the late author and essayist on the American West, once called the national park system "the best idea we ever had."

Most Americans seem to believe that it is, at least, a very good idea. Park service employees annually receive the highest favorable ratings of all federal employees. In public opinion polls, including a recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, respondents have said they were in favor of expanding the national park system and affording it more protection.

Support for parks can also be measured by enthusiastic volunteer efforts. The Sierra Club and other groups continue to organize park cleanup days, and senior citizens and retirees in large numbers donate their time as campground hosts or visitor center docents.

According to the park service, volunteers donated more than 5 million hours to the parks last year, saving the agency more than $90 million.

But despite that goodwill, the tally of visitors paints a worrisome picture. Although a few parks are crowded in summer months, many others are empty year-round. The park service's forecast for next year predicts another drop across the board.

Some members of Congress have offered solutions they say would put parks more in step with what Americans want, including more commercialized activities and businesses. With the backing of industry, some politicians have called for opening more parks to motorized recreation.

James Gramann, a social scientist at Texas A&M University and visiting chief social scientist for the park service, cautioned, "We can't be driven simply by changes in public tastes, because we also have responsibilities to resources that we are mandated to protect."

Critics contend that if park service officials become slaves to recreational fashion, national parks would roar with the sound of jet skis, snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles, and cellphone towers would rise among redwoods and touch-screen computers would dot wilderness trails.

"When you put technical contrivances in, it replaces nature, and what sets the parks apart is their authenticity," said Bill Tweed, former chief resource ranger at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.

"The next generation will challenge the national parks. They might ask, 'Why do we need parks when we can simulate them?' In a rush to make parks relevant, we will end up destroying what makes them unique."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected]
 
Fewer national park visitors

(Additional Info re: Above Post)

Visits to national parks have been declining for several years, and officials at the National Park Service are trying to come up with strategies to woo people back.

Visitors to selected parks, 1995-2005 (in millions) Sequoia Yellowstone Yosemite Death Valley
1995 0.84 3.13 3.96 1.11
2005 1.00 2.84 3.30 0.80
Percent change +19% -9% -17% -28%
Minorities and the national parks

Some findings from a 2000 survey of American adults:

X Sequoia Yellowstone Yosemite Death Valley

1995 0.84 3.13 3.96 1.11

2005 1.00 2.84 3.30 0.80

Percent change +19%-9%-17%-28%

18% of African Americans said parks were uncomfortable places to be.

24% of Latinos said parks were not safe.

74% of Latinos said they don't visit parks because they are too expensive.

75% of African Americans said they don't visit parks because they don't know much about them.

*

Source: National Park Service
 
interesting...

very interesting. I know this is selfish but i hope there are less people in yosemite the next time i go there :)

Not to be negative, but it seems to be that everytime a nice place gets over run with people, we end up ruining it. Basically it goes back to the attitude "what a beautiful place, let's change it."

On the contrary, have people found the white's to be over run with people compared to 10-20 years ago? For example, traffic jams in North Conway?

As far as the parks being too expensive, for $50 you can get a year's pass in every park in the country, and that includes discounts at national monuments. It is a challenge for a couple to go out for dinner and a cocktail and have it cost less than $50. For some reason people think that $50 is a lot of money for some things, but it is so easily spent on a night out on the town, or a new set of rims.

i'm really grateful that people have taken the time and made it a priority to save a lot of these areas. we get so caught up and busy in our day to day lives, that we probably don't think about it very often. but, from time to time, i think "wow! i'm so glad i can still enjoy these places."
 
I have to say, when I was in Rocky Mountain National Park this summer, it was mobbed just about everywhere we went (except the Never Summer Range - which are the best part of he park IMHO). We spent several nights in the back country in areas that were supposedly "quiet areas" and there still was not a day we did not see another person. I would not mind a little more peace and quiet when I got to Glacier or wherever my travels take me in 2007.

It is a sad fact that the youth of today do not get out to enjoy the outdoors. I think this article only reflects a larger trend in outdoor activities. For instance hunting licenses being sold are down significantly throughout the northeast.

I only hope that our politicians will not choose the allure of "quick fixes" to increase the "appeal" of the National Parks.

Now if I could only more time off to spend in these beautiful places.
 
It's a dilemma. More people in the parks means more pressure on the fragile ecosystems. Less people in the parks means more and more people are disconnected from nature.

Is a park a success because lots of people go to it or is it a success because it is people-free?
Or, is a park a success when lots of people go to it and benefit from it and leave no trace?
 
I can't speak for what is happening but gas prices being very high certainly affected how many trips I took this summer and the distance I would be willing to travel.
I did not go to camp at Blackwoods in ANP, one of my favorite places.
I took only one trip to the Whites and that was specifically for a wedding party in the NE Kingdom.
I think it's very true about kids not relating well to the great outdoors, but if they are not, neither are their parents.
I travelled to So. Vt several times and No VT once to camp for two weeks.
I do have injuries that I am recovering from but nevertheless I would have gone further just to hang out if gas prices were not so ridiculously high.
It would be interesting if someone did a survey on this topic.
Are people just vacationing closer to home?
I worked with an anesthesiologist who told me that he could not even afford to take his family to The Hilton (AMC hotel). Now he makes decent money but with kids in school you can only stretch it so far.
If its heat your home or visit a park, I think you might opt to heat your home.
 
Last edited:
When poll respondants said they though parks were expensive maybe they meant accomodations, meals etc. In Banff National Park if you want to stay at a hotel or motel you better have some serious money lined up.


"Some members of Congress have offered solutions they say would put parks more in step with what Americans want, including more commercialized activities and businesses. With the backing of industry, some politicians have called for opening more parks to motorized recreation.
"
If this ever happens then one day, those of us who seek deep wilderness will have to find it outside of the park system. What a shame that would be.
 
Carmel said:
On the contrary, have people found the white's to be over run with people compared to 10-20 years ago?

Twenty years ago, hiking "solo" in the WMNF meant that you saw no one else on the trail all day. If you wanted to hike "solo," you made sure to go on a Monday...or a Tuesday...or a Wednesday....or a Thursday....or a Friday.

WMNF says that it clocks 6 million visitors annually now. "Visitor" may be rather loosely defined to include the drive-by, but that's still a lot of people.
 
Earth Day etc, started in the late 60's. IIRC, this outdoorsy spirit resulted in increased use of the parks etc. That generation is now getting old enough that many have probably stopped going very often.

Perhaps part of the drop-off is the end of a boom.

Just a speculation--I have no data to support it.


There is no question that there is more winter use now in the Whites than when I started in the mid-70s. Breaking trail was very common back then--now it is a rare "treat".

Doug
 
Last edited:
Neil said:
When poll respondants said they though parks were expensive maybe they meant accomodations, meals etc. In Banff National Park if you want to stay at a hotel or motel you better have some serious money lined up.


"Some members of Congress have offered solutions they say would put parks more in step with what Americans want, including more commercialized activities and businesses. With the backing of industry, some politicians have called for opening more parks to motorized recreation.
"
If this ever happens then one day, those of us who seek deep wilderness will have to find it outside of the park system. What a shame that would be.

Perhaps they could even build shopping malls, a few casinos, nightclubs
(or whatever they call them these days).
Cinemas with plenty of R rated films.
A rental service for you motorized vehicle...bike, scooter, whatever.
I can see the writing on the wall. It's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
They are starting up slow but sure.
It's like the cog story. It started off slow years ago, the talking.
Now it's a done deal. Next thing will be a warming hut situated on top of the "lunch rocks". Maybe even a hot dog vender!
:eek: :eek: :eek:
The neat thing about being "older" is that for a minimal fee (maybe something like $25....I forgot how much) you get a lifetime pass to all National Parks, 1/2 price camping, and free parking. I think when you turn 60 you are eligible. It' s a very good deal. Nice think to keep in your glove compartment.
They're working hard on the ruination of Alaska now.
All about MONEY!
I could not believe the number of stores that were open Thanksgiving day in this area. Large farm stores selling groceries, gifts, cards, etc. What was even worse was that a 9am their parking lots were fairly full as I drove past.
Great for kids. They can work all day instead of enjoying their families and planning their summer vacations in a national park!

Not every thing that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced. "
- James Baldwin
 
Maddy said:
The neat thing about being "older" is that for a minimal fee (maybe something like $25....I forgot how much) you get a lifetime pass to all National Parks, 1/2 price camping, and free parking. I think when you turn 60 you are eligible. It' s a very good deal. Nice think to keep in your glove compartment.

At 62, U.S. citizens and permanent residents can get a Golden Age pass. It used to be free; now there's a one-time nominal fee ($10). In the WMNF, it entitles you to free parking and various discounts (e.g., 50% off camping). You have to pick it up in person at places like the WMNF visitor center, Exit 32, I-93, in N. Woodstock/Lincoln. Take ID. As Maddy says, it's a good deal.
 
Kevin Rooney said:
"I do believe that there is a significant trend, 'Done before dinner,' " said Frank Hugelmeyer, president of the Outdoor Industry Assn. "Baby Boomers want hard adventure by day and soft adventure by night. They want to paddle and rock-climb and also their Cabernet and almond-crusted salmon with asparagus. And a nice bed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected][/I]

Cabernet and almond-crusted salmon with asparagus? :confused: Give me beer and pizza anytime :D :D
 
Last edited:
Economics 101

It's largely a case of supply and demand. In my own life, like many other, my supply of free time is ever-dwindling, due to commuting time and family and job pressures. There is an oversupply of stimuli for the American family, including but not limited to: soccer, little league, theme parks, shopping malls, internet, 300 cable TV channels, beaches, lakes, boats, bicycles, ... I know I've seen a fare number of people hiking with their iPod this year.

The government, which oversees the national parks, is not in the hospitality business. To compete, they have to market the parks against everything else competing for our time, and that costs money, which comes at the expense of user fees or higher taxes. Of course their hands are tied by the laws which created the national parks, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage. The parks as designed are clearly not as attractive as an abundance of other options. Supply exceeds demand.

If my wife and I will spend $50 on dinner but not $12 on a park (which we would, and do), then that tells the ECON101 student that the $50 dinner is a more desirable experience then the $12 day at the park.

I didn't see anyone mention the obesity factor. Whole demographics (Latinos, African Americans, young folks, baby boomers) were mentioned, but no mention of overweight or out of shape folks. The trend towards fatter and unhealthier people must also have an impact. If I can't walk up a flight of stairs without taking a break, I certainly can't hike around a national park. Heck, I ski 10-12 times per year at Waterville Valley, and 50% of their skiers stay within the 2km loop at the touring center, because they aren't in good enough shape to go any further. And they pay to come there and ski.

We could also take all the lawyers, who litigate frivolous lawsuits and cause all those warnings to be posted scaring off potential customers, and air-drop them into the middle of a national park, with a map, compass, flashlight and knife, and see if that doesn't take care of the problem somewhat :D

I'm not sure everyone agrees that under use is a 'problem'. But the 'solution' is pretty obvious. Most of us would be severely disappointed with it.

Tim
 
Reading that article it seems as if the purpose of a park is to attract clientele and collect money from the clientele to pay for the employees and infrastructures. Sounds more like a business than a park.

Whatever happened to protecting the environment? I always thought that was what a park was for. Or am I so out of it that it's not even funny?
 
Interesting paradox. The NPS started out as a way to protect America's treasures and let the people who pay for it, enjoy it.
It seems that the Nat'l Parks don't have an ACTIVE constituency, so interest groups that have a more public presence get the $$.
It may be great from a recreationalist's standpoint that Yosemite, Kings Canyon may be experiencing less traffic. However, the Feds measure traffic as a way of where they'll fund. Less taxpayers = less downstream funding.

Consider this - would it be better to substantially raise visitor fees for non-North American visitors? Would anyone who has spent the time and money to come from Europe or Asia not visit because the dayfees and passes are more expensive for them? Not intended as a xenophobic question, but the infrastructure does need attention and its unlikely that the current system is doing it.
 
Neil said:
Reading that article it seems as if the purpose of a park is to attract clientele and collect money from the clientele to pay for the employees and infrastructures. Sounds more like a business than a park.

Whatever happened to protecting the environment? I always thought that was what a park was for. Or am I so out of it that it's not even funny?
The NPS has a multi-objective role and the objectives can compete.

http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/mission.htm
The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.

I suspect they have to use visitor numbers to justify fund allocations while still trying to preserve the area from overuse damage... And funding has been very tight in the last few years.

Doug
 
Last edited:
There are many reasons why attendance is down at national parks, and I'd like to toss out a couple more which I don't think have been mentioned. One is the lack of maintenance on roads, guardrails, restrooms, etc. Another is the visual impact in some parks of the effects of massive forest fires. In time the forests will grow back, and more informed fire management practices will reduce the chances of this occurring again, but for 50-100 years after one of these devastating fires this has to have an impact on attendence, particularly return attendence.
 
Top